CARTOON characters are people too, a judge has ruled in the case of a man convicted over cartoons based on The Simpsons, in which children are shown having sex.

In the New South Wales Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a "person" within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.

Alan John McEwan was appealing his February conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.

"The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons," the judge said.

The cartoons showed characters such as Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex.

McEwan was convicted and fined $3000 and placed on a good behaviour bond.

"In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word 'person' included fictional or imaginary characters ...," the judge said.

"... the mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a 'person'."

In dismissing the appeal, the judge ordered each party to pay its own legal costs in the first case dealing with the "difficult" issue.

It's a weird one, isn't it? I mean, with kiddie porn, I always thought that part of the issue was that some kid had been forced/tricked/coerced into it. Which obviously isn't the case with a drawing.

Couldn't the dude just say that the drawing of Bart was recent and therefore he is 20-something years old? Or else the drawing is of a 25-year-old with that Gary Coleman disease that makes 'em appear younger?

But yeah, I'm not really defending the dude. It's still kinda weird to have that sort of stuff and may well be indicative of an interest in something he shouldn't have, which I guess is reflected in the sentence.

/// wrote:Just because a child or something depicting a child is shown naked doesn't mean it's automatically pornographic. It's the nature of it that determines that, isn't it?

as far as im aware, nudity can be pornography. Like that bill henson saga. He was taking "arty" photos of naked children. Im pretty sure they were deemed to be child porn but he got off it because he had consent of the parents etc etc as well as the kids who are older now feeling okay about it all.

I thought the whole idea about punishing people for looking at/downloading child porn was because it keeps up the demand for others to produce it, which can have a huge effect on that poor childs life.You're obviously a bit of a weido if you get off on cartoon porn but its not doing any harm.